Roger Shekar v. Selene Finance LP, et al
| ROGER SHEKAR |
| SELENE FINANCE LP, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, SELENE HOLDINGS LLC, PRETIUM PARTNERS LLC, PHH MORTGAGE CORP, ALTISOURCE LLC, OCWEN FINANCIAL CORP, KATIE BREWER, as an individual, IMELDA AVALOS, as an individual, GLENN MESSINA, as an individual, WILLIAM SHEPRO, as an individual, MICHELLE ESTERMAN, as an individual, DONALD MULLEN and JOSEPH DAVILA, as an individual |
| 25-1623 |
| April 4, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other Contract Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 25, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER (SHWARTZ, MATEY and CHUNG, Circuit Judges) denying motion to stay/recall mandate filed by Appellant Roger Shekar. Chung, Authoring Judge. (KR) [Entered: 09/25/2025 11:36 AM]
|
| Filing 20 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Roger Shekar to stay mandate. Certificate of Service dated 09/19/2025. Service made by US mail. [25-1623] (RS) [Entered: 09/22/2025 10:45 AM] |
|
Filing 19
ORDER (SHWARTZ, MATEY and CHUNG, Circuit Judges) denying motion for leave to file the petition for rehearing as submitted by Appellant Roger Shekar. This appeal was dismissed on June 12, 2025 and a certified copy of that Order was issued in lieu of a formal mandate. The time for seeking rehearing has expired. With that, this appeal has concluded. No further submissions will be considered. Any further review must be sought in the United States Supreme Court. Chung, Authoring Judge. (KR) [Entered: 09/19/2025 03:21 PM]
|
| Filing 18 TEXT ORDER (Clerk) vacating noncompliance order dated 09/04/2025. (KR) [Entered: 09/09/2025 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 16 NONCOMPLIANCE Order sent to Appellant Roger Shekar requesting Motion to file Petition for Rehearing Out of Time and Motion to file Exhbits to the Petition for Rehearing. (KR) [Entered: 09/04/2025 08:50 AM] |
| Filing 17 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Roger Shekar for leave to file the petition for rehearing as submitted. Certificate of Service dated 09/03/2025. Service made by US mail. (KR) [Entered: 09/09/2025 02:40 PM] |
| Filing 15 ECF FILER: Petition filed by Appellant Roger Shekar for Rehearing before original panel and the court en banc. Certificate of Service dated 09/03/2025. Service made by US mail. [25-1623] (RS) [Entered: 09/03/2025 10:13 AM] |
|
Filing 14
ORDER (SHWARTZ, MATEY and CHUNG, Circuit Judges) denying motion for extension of time to file petition for rehearing until September 24, 2025 filed by Appellant Roger Shekar. Chung, Authoring Judge. (KR) [Entered: 08/28/2025 12:21 PM]
|
| Filing 13 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Roger Shekar for Extension of Time to file Rehearing En banc until/for 30 days. Certificate of Service dated 08/25/2025. Service made by US mail. [25-1623] (RS) [Entered: 08/25/2025 11:21 AM] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER (CHUNG, Circuit Judge) granting motion for extension of time to file petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Roger Shekar. Appellant's petition for rehearing is due August 25, 2025. Chung, Authoring Judge. (KR) [Entered: 07/09/2025 02:36 PM]
|
| Filing 11 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Roger Shekar for Extension of Time to file Petition for Rehearing until/for 60 days. Certificate of Service dated 06/26/2025. Service made by Email. [25-1623]--[Edited 06/26/2025 by KR] (RS) [Entered: 06/26/2025 09:36 AM] |
|
Filing 10
ORDER (SHWARTZ, MATEY and CHUNG, Circuit Judges) the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants Petition for Sanctions on District Court Judge Kearney and to Order District Court to Re-open the Case is denied. Panel No.: BLD-161. Chung, Authoring Judge. (KR) [Entered: 06/12/2025 12:13 PM]
|
| Filing 9 ECF FILER: RESPONSE from Appellant Roger Shekar to Clerk Order (Docket #8) and Jurisdictional Statement. Certificate of Service dated 04/11/2025 by Email. [25-1623]--[Edited 04/11/2025 by KR] (RS) [Entered: 04/11/2025 12:08 PM] |
|
Filing 8
ORDER (Clerk) referring Appellant's motion for sanctions on District Court Judge Kearney and to order District Court to reopen the case and any response to the same panel of the Court that will consider the possible dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (KR) [Entered: 04/10/2025 03:16 PM]
|
| Filing 7 ECF FILER: RESPONSE filed by Appellant Roger Shekar to Legal Division Letter advising possible dismisssal. Certificate of Service dated 04/08/2025 by Email. [25-1623]--[Edited 04/10/2025 by KR] (RS) [Entered: 04/08/2025 11:00 PM] |
| Filing 6 LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising that the case has been listed for possible dismissal due to jurisdictional defect. (MW) [Entered: 04/08/2025 10:43 AM] |
| Filing 5 ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Roger Shekar for sanctions on District Court Judge Kearney and to order District Court to reopen the case. Certificate of Service dated 04/04/2025. Service made by Email. [25-1623]--[Edited 04/04/2025 by KR] (RS) [Entered: 04/04/2025 11:00 AM] |
| Filing 4 NOTICE Pursuant to 3d Cir. L.A.R. 26.1, a document is timely filed if received by 5:00 p.m. ET on the last day for filing unless the Court sets a different time, the document has been submitted by an inmate pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii), or otherwise specified in L.A.R. 26.1 (KR) [Entered: 04/04/2025 09:32 AM] |
| Filing 3 Copy of Amended Notice of Appeal filed 04/01/2025 received from Clerk of District Court. (KR) [Entered: 04/04/2025 09:32 AM] |
| Filing 2 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (KR) [Entered: 04/04/2025 09:29 AM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Roger Shekar in District Court No. 2:24-cv-06794. (KR) [Entered: 04/04/2025 09:25 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
